Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Of the newer parks I have been to, I like PNC in Pittsburgh the best. It retains the smaller, more intimate feel of the older parks (like Wrigley, or Fenway), which a lot of the newer parks have failed to do. The view out to the downtown Pittsburgh skyline is terrific too!

The view from the river is pretty nice too, especially on the weekends. Here's a pitcher I stole from somebody on this website that was taken back in June when the Tigers came to town:

Just imagine how fly it'd look on a weekend in late August or September if the Pirates find themselves in a pennant race!

I don't know if I said this before but I don't love Miller Park, I think it's a great place to watch a baseball game(sight lines) and the great tailgating and the atmosphere inside and outside the park and there is plenty of amenties and the cost of going to a Brewer game is very affordable and I like how Miller Park looks from the outside, I'm just not in love with it on the inside. First off I hate Domed stadiums, I prefer all baseball stadiums be open air and if you can't handle the cold and rain and wind then wear a helmet because life is tough. I think baseball was meant to be played outside for better or worse, come October not that the people in Chicago have anything to worry about but for the rest of us.

Last fall I went to Comerica Park and I absolutely loved it, yes smaller than Miller Park 2 levels not 4 like Miller Park and not as many amenities as Miller Park but it felt like old school baseball, open air even when you were in the technically the 3rd deck you could see great. The 3rd deck at Comerica is at the height if Miller Park's second deck, at least in the first few rows.

After looking through the list of baseball parks, I really like Comerica, Coors Field, Great American Ball Park, Target Field and Wrigley Field. I can't stand the Cubs or Cardinal but I really like their parks. My two favorites are Oriole Park and Comerica Park. I wish the Brewers would have built the Ebbets Field knock-off they were going to:

I've been to Cincinnati, Detroit, Chicago Cubs, Toronto, Baltimore, San Diego, and LA Dodgers. Of those, I think my favorite was Baltimore. Very old style feel and down the line the seats are faced more towards home plate which, I like. San Diego is good too. IMO Dodger Stadium is overated. It wasn't bad, but everyone seems to hype it up and I just didn't see what was so great about it other than the nice view.

I have been to games at Yankee Stadium ( original ), Arlington, KC Royals, Cardinals, Petco ( San Diego ), Angels, A's, and ATT ( giants ).

My first choice by far is ATT in San Francisco. Now if it was just warmer for night games, I would be happy. I always go to day games there on Sunday and Wednesday/Thursday. My favorite older park is Royal's stadium in Kanasas City.

One of the most beautiful ballparks is the one in Lansing, MI, home of the class-A Lug Nuts. It was designed to look like the old time ballparks - brick concorse, bleachers along each foul line, and a grassy area in the outfield. It is just a perfect little park (capacity about 12,000.)
Briggs-Tiger Stadium (Detroit) was beautiful in this respect - you were right on top of the action. Could yell at the players and hear them. Not a bad seat in the park unless you were behind a beam. CoAmerica Park is an abomination that puts you miles from the field. The new parks are configured so luxury boxes can be added, putting the fans far from the action.
Ferk the fans is the owners opinion. Profit must be served.

To me, Fenway Park is what the others are trying to recreate. If you look at the new ballparks, most are desperately trying to arrive at that old time look and feel, with asymmetric dimensions and quirks.

So, for me, Fenway is the real deal and while you may not get all the bells and whistles of a new stadium, you get the authenticity of a true vintage ballpark. All of the other cities decided they needed to tear down their old parks and build new stadiums that from the 1950s to 1980s were these concrete, circular, astro-turf monstrosities. Then about 15 years ago they started feeling guilty and sorry for what they did and started to replace those cookie cutter parks with new parks that tried to recapture the old look and feel.

Really they're simply trying to recreate their original ballparks, not Fenway. To be fair, many of the cities that did that (Philadelphia, Cincinnati, etc etc) did that because they faced too much decline to really maintain an older ballpark the way more fortunate cities like Chicago, Boston, and New York did. Those old relics became a burden, not an asset. Do you know where some of those stadiums were located? Could you imagine what would've happened to Shibe during the crack epidemic if they hadn't razed it first?

Do I wish they would've kept the older, classic ballparks? Of course but the fact is that you can't simply fault the cities for that. If people and companies and even teams hadn't abandoned those cities the way they did then those ballparks would probably still be there. Also, it's the teams that tell the cities how they want their ballpark to be... not the other way around.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.